Come now Tori, is rebutting in such a condescending manner really going to get you anywhere? Like with the "hun" stuff.
If you just want to insult someone, surly you can come up with better than that.
I believe that for now, we still have the right to have our own opinions and to express them, except of course on platforms which engage in censorship.
Perhaps less snideness and more reason would be more productive and less polarizing.
Matthias Desmet did a great article recently; it was about the difference between groups falling for propaganda versus those who do not. Something like that. But somewhere in the article I caught an understanding that I had been missing, regarding the occasional bullying retorts I receive to my comments that differ. I came away seeing that hostility is due to a narcissistic type of anger, when the hostile responder's 'superior' view is not reflected in an oppositional comment.
I've been guilty of some hostility in some of my past post. I cannot justify that. There is no legitimate excuse. I've been angry and written unkind comments. I've just been a jerk - and I may have come across as promoting my view as "superior". Frankly, when I engage some folks - leftists trolls on Revolver for example, who offer nothing of substance and only spout anti-Trump hatred or absurd support for our criminal regime, I do believe my views are superior to theirs. However, that does not excuse the unkindness. I'm sorry I've been the way. I'm trying to reform.
I think the anger is a knee jerk reaction, and it feels justified, even though most often it is not in a commentary section. I experienced a phase of anger when schools mandated the covid shots. The compliance of adults put innocent children at risk of severe harm. Everyone is really entitled to their opinion, no matter how dull or ignorant as long as the opinion does not lead to group support of totalitarian control over everyone. I don't know of Revolver. I always identified as a democrat, but I think they have lost their compass. I was flummoxed by those who lauded Trump in such glowing terms. I also was as perplexed by the 'hatred' toward him. It would be much more productive if we had civil debate without ad hominem attacks, it would increase clarity on issues. It would take restraint and discipline to engage like that but would also become a good habit and is very doable. If someone whose first impulse is to 'kick the dog' in frustration believes they could not exercise such restraint, it is helpful to point out all the areas in life where they already do. Frustrated people don't usually lash out at bosses, high paying customers or anyone where it is self-beneficial not to. I find the easiest way to not get defensive or hostile is to commit to not taking anything someone else writes or says personally. The self-benefit is low blood pressure and not contributing to a warring world.
Right on! and I must plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court, concerning much of what you say here. At the risk of sounding like I'm just making excuses, I believe I have not coped well with the cumulative happenings since the turn of the century. I think the phony pandemic was the proverbial last straw and for just the past couple of years I've been angry at most everyone and everything beyond my front door. I'm one of those silly people who have "The Imaginary Friend in the Sky", so I'm prayerful I've turned a corner and will continue to regain a degree of civility and perhaps will experience increased reason, as a byproduct.
FYI, Revolver is a news website I use some. They certainly lean right and are pro-Trump, but they often include links to news articles from liberal/left leaning publications, so it can be helpful. It's like any other news outlet, you need to carefully filter it.
I also have been angry at most over the covid lies, although I was not lashing out. I wasted my time trying to warn others, and only became a target. Once I saw that most people did not want to hear about the shot dangers, I shut my mouth. I reserved my fight to stop the school mandate at our school. CHD took the school to court and won.
I evidently wasted my time too. I have an older sibling who gave me her attention, and listened to my point of view, based on actual science, then turned around and got the first poison jab; says she didn't get the boosters. Frustrating.
I was watching ex-CIA agent Andrew Bustamente youtube video today. The CIA teach their agents psyche strategies that are practical (some are manipulative though). He did discuss the ineffectiveness of trying to get someone to change their viewpoint if at the outset you can see they really do not want to.
Where do you surmise that I would be wanting to go, hun? No one needs the Gladys Kravitz's of the world to censure and direct the *correct* course of discourse. Do you not find it *condescending*, amusingly, to chide and pompously lecture about *proper discourse*? If he's Exhibit A in proving Peterson's hypothesis, then you are Exhibit B, lol. Peterson's very point is being proven by those who object to...unapproved language and failure to abide to groupthink.
Come now Tori, is rebutting in such a condescending manner really going to get you anywhere? Like with the "hun" stuff.
If you just want to insult someone, surly you can come up with better than that.
I believe that for now, we still have the right to have our own opinions and to express them, except of course on platforms which engage in censorship.
Perhaps less snideness and more reason would be more productive and less polarizing.
Peace!
Matthias Desmet did a great article recently; it was about the difference between groups falling for propaganda versus those who do not. Something like that. But somewhere in the article I caught an understanding that I had been missing, regarding the occasional bullying retorts I receive to my comments that differ. I came away seeing that hostility is due to a narcissistic type of anger, when the hostile responder's 'superior' view is not reflected in an oppositional comment.
Thanks! I'll see if I can find the article.
I've been guilty of some hostility in some of my past post. I cannot justify that. There is no legitimate excuse. I've been angry and written unkind comments. I've just been a jerk - and I may have come across as promoting my view as "superior". Frankly, when I engage some folks - leftists trolls on Revolver for example, who offer nothing of substance and only spout anti-Trump hatred or absurd support for our criminal regime, I do believe my views are superior to theirs. However, that does not excuse the unkindness. I'm sorry I've been the way. I'm trying to reform.
Peace!
I think the anger is a knee jerk reaction, and it feels justified, even though most often it is not in a commentary section. I experienced a phase of anger when schools mandated the covid shots. The compliance of adults put innocent children at risk of severe harm. Everyone is really entitled to their opinion, no matter how dull or ignorant as long as the opinion does not lead to group support of totalitarian control over everyone. I don't know of Revolver. I always identified as a democrat, but I think they have lost their compass. I was flummoxed by those who lauded Trump in such glowing terms. I also was as perplexed by the 'hatred' toward him. It would be much more productive if we had civil debate without ad hominem attacks, it would increase clarity on issues. It would take restraint and discipline to engage like that but would also become a good habit and is very doable. If someone whose first impulse is to 'kick the dog' in frustration believes they could not exercise such restraint, it is helpful to point out all the areas in life where they already do. Frustrated people don't usually lash out at bosses, high paying customers or anyone where it is self-beneficial not to. I find the easiest way to not get defensive or hostile is to commit to not taking anything someone else writes or says personally. The self-benefit is low blood pressure and not contributing to a warring world.
Right on! and I must plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court, concerning much of what you say here. At the risk of sounding like I'm just making excuses, I believe I have not coped well with the cumulative happenings since the turn of the century. I think the phony pandemic was the proverbial last straw and for just the past couple of years I've been angry at most everyone and everything beyond my front door. I'm one of those silly people who have "The Imaginary Friend in the Sky", so I'm prayerful I've turned a corner and will continue to regain a degree of civility and perhaps will experience increased reason, as a byproduct.
FYI, Revolver is a news website I use some. They certainly lean right and are pro-Trump, but they often include links to news articles from liberal/left leaning publications, so it can be helpful. It's like any other news outlet, you need to carefully filter it.
Thanks for the comment!
Peace!
I also have been angry at most over the covid lies, although I was not lashing out. I wasted my time trying to warn others, and only became a target. Once I saw that most people did not want to hear about the shot dangers, I shut my mouth. I reserved my fight to stop the school mandate at our school. CHD took the school to court and won.
I evidently wasted my time too. I have an older sibling who gave me her attention, and listened to my point of view, based on actual science, then turned around and got the first poison jab; says she didn't get the boosters. Frustrating.
Congratulations on the school victory!
I was watching ex-CIA agent Andrew Bustamente youtube video today. The CIA teach their agents psyche strategies that are practical (some are manipulative though). He did discuss the ineffectiveness of trying to get someone to change their viewpoint if at the outset you can see they really do not want to.
Thanks for that info!
I'll check it out.
Where do you surmise that I would be wanting to go, hun? No one needs the Gladys Kravitz's of the world to censure and direct the *correct* course of discourse. Do you not find it *condescending*, amusingly, to chide and pompously lecture about *proper discourse*? If he's Exhibit A in proving Peterson's hypothesis, then you are Exhibit B, lol. Peterson's very point is being proven by those who object to...unapproved language and failure to abide to groupthink.